Currently Indians are really bad against meso and infantry civs in 1v1.
At the same time they are the top arabia pocket civ in 4v4 teamgames.
Which balance changes would you recommend to equalize the current situation (make Indians better vs meso and infantry civs in 1v1s and less powerful as a pocket teamgame civ)?
Apart from that I feel like their teambonus of “Camel units +5 attack vs. buildings” should be smaller at least by 1 unit. Usually it’s utilized just by Indians themselves. Camels of Indians are already amazing, with a great economy behind. Giving them such a huge bonus damage against buildings is truly unnecessary imo.
Mesos are infantry civs. HC are supposed to counter infantry. Indians have superior HC. Imo its yet more proof that HC simply don’t cut it.
At the same time according to so many people aren’t EA great at countering archers? Combined with HC (supposedly good vs infantry) should mean late game Indians are great vs mesos… Indians aren’t because obviously the above isn’t true contrary to what some people have been saying?
I think when HC are finally buffed to the level they’re supposed to be ( to justify all these weak gunpowder civs) then Indians will be fine as well…
There is a prevalent issue with gunpowder being too weak and none of the generic gunpowder civs being meta due to this… Porto italy turks indian spanish all have buffs to there HC (and bbc in cases) yet even then we hardly ever see their HC nevermind civs without bonuses…
Compared to the archer and knight line that are used even when they miss key tech… (this is a similar issue to CA)
Yeah they just kept giving them bonuses to the camels to make up for their weakness elsewhere which didn’t make sense since it didn’t fix the problem only made them stronger and stronger in one area…
Wow. A post about changing indians that has nothing to do with historical accuracy, battle elephants or elephant archers.
This really is a strange event.
Indians are very good against cav and good against archer civs. They need some bad matchups, or?
Yes, the range of the matchup percentages of indians is huge compared to other civs, but it is ok. If nobody sees when you take indians, you just have sometimes luck and sometimes bad luck with them.
That’s their design.
They’re good in Team games because they excel in specific roles, so other team members with flexible civs can take the roles, indians can’t take.
Also their UU fits in almost all other compostion.
I think Indians are in a good spot now, all things considered.
Indians need a nerf on the imperial camel as i suggested in other topic, all cavalry civs are in disadvantage vs them, plus with their economy behind, they rule the team games.
In 1x1 they are fine, they were once an unstoppable civ there, when they had arbalest, their economy is just too big to even give them another bonus, the normal battle ele should fill the empty that knight line left and could give’em another option for castle age, specially for 1x1 if you are facing brits, ethipians or mayan those eles with the cheap vill bonus could boost their 1x1 without breaking them in late game.
Yes, They would need both the Villager discount and Sultans removed, or they would be the greatest Knight/BE spammer of all times, and highly unbalanced.
Indians always struggled against infantry and meso civs while being very good against cav civs so it’s really a question of what civs are meta/most picked. This makes balancing quite hard. If anything give them back arbalest but due to their strenghts in teamgames and in some 1v1 matchups I’m not entirely sure about that.